This Board letter provides an overview of the current status of many Delta flood, habitat, and water issues affecting Yolo County. It covers four topics: proposed County participation in a Regional Conservation Framework (Section I); local flood protection issues and updates (Section II); ongoing work to restore habitat and otherwise improve conditions for aquatic species in the Yolo Bypass, as well as related County grants (Section III); and the California WaterFix (Section IV), which includes the highly controversial “Delta tunnels” water conveyance project. Each topic is addressed in summary fashion with an emphasis on recent developments and matters that may return to the Board for direction or action.
During the Board presentation of this agenda item, staff will review each topic briefly to highlight key areas of ongoing work—particularly on matters with the potential to significantly affect the County, such as expansion of the Yolo Bypass in Lower Elkhorn. A graphic is included as Attachment A to aid in identifying the areas mentioned in this Board letter.
Separately, there are some areas of progress on Delta habitat and flood issues that receive little or no attention in this Board letter. Staff are thus including an attachment (Attachment B) that identifies successes on Delta issues over the past few years. The attachment includes goals that were developed in early 2016 with the Delta ad hoc subcommittee to reflect main objectives of the County’s policy efforts on Delta issues. For each goal, specific areas of success are identified along with (in most instances) an indication that work is ongoing.
I. Regional Conservation Framework—Proposed County Participation.
As indicated above, County staff request Board authority to participate in a countywide “Regional Conservation Framework” (RCF) planning process. The process is one of several statewide (including in the East San Francisco Bay region, Antelope Valley, and Santa Clara County) intended to identify priority areas for public and private investments in habitat restoration and preservation. The proposed local RCF process would include the following:
- The Yolo Habitat Conservancy would be the “lead agency” for preparation of the RCF, with the County also having a substantial role. Each entity’s work would be funded by grants from the Bechtel Foundation (via the Windward Fund, its fiscal agent).
- The Conservancy will direct preparation of the RCF in a manner that expands an existing draft local conservation plan by adding a focus area for the Yolo Bypass and 18 additional species (including eight fish species). This achieves an important Conservancy objective by ensuring completion of a plan to address species that are not covered by the HCP/NCCP but are of significant local conservation interest.
- RCF preparation will proceed only as Conservancy resources permit; it will not jeopardize the timely completion of the HCP/NCCP and must be consistent with the HCP/NCCP conservation strategy.
- Both the Conservancy Board and the Board of Supervisors will have an opportunity to provide input into the process and, most importantly, to approve the final RCF at the conclusion of the process (in about April or May 2017).
- If approved by the Conservancy and County, the final RCF will be submitted to the California Department of Fish & Wildlife for approval.
Though not initially prepared in accordance with Assembly Bill 2087 (recently signed into law), the draft Yolo County RCF scope of work anticipated a change in state law formalizing the regional conservation framework process. Preparation of a local RCF will thus proceed generally in accordance with the new law to ensure an opportunity for eventual approval by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Though of limited regulatory effect, an approved RCF should influence state agency (and other) efforts to restore or preserve habitat in Yolo County. A locally-led RCF is thus consistent with the longstanding County objective of directing conservation efforts to appropriate locations to avoid conflicts with agriculture, development, and implementation of the Yolo HCP/NCCP. For these reasons, staff recommend County participation in a local RCF (including authority to finalize a grant funding agreement with the Windward Fund). Staff will return to the Board with a budget resolution if necessary to receive the proposed grant funding.
The Conservancy is working separately to complete the scope of work and funding arrangements for the RCF. The Conservancy Board of Directors approved Conservancy leadership of the RCF process in Yolo County during its July 25, 2016 meeting. The vote was 4-2, with the dissenting votes voicing uncertainty about AB 2087 and the consequences of a local RCF process (including potential conflicts with completion of the HCP/NCCP). County staff believe conflicts with the HCP/NCCP process have been adequately addressed by the legislation (which requires an RCF to be consistent with a draft HCP/NCCP released after January 1, 2016) and the scope of work (which prioritizes completion of the HCP/NCCP over completion of the RCF).
II. Flood Protection.
Generally, County staff monitor flood protection issues through participation with other local agencies in a group referred to as the Project Development Team (PDT). The following discussion thus refers in places to ongoing efforts led by (or coordinated by County staff with) the PDT.
DWR provides funding to convene the PDT to analyze and promote regional flood planning efforts. Participating agencies include Yolo and Solano Counties, Reclamation District 2068, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), the West Sacramento Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA), and Solano County Water Agency. The PDT has published various planning and policy documents, including a Regional Flood Management Plan (RFMP) and a comprehensive Lower Sacramento-Delta North Corridor Management Framework (CMF). It also meets regularly to discuss flood protection issues of interest to the participating agencies, including all of the issues covered in this Section.
A. Lower Elkhorn Update.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) continues its effort to undertake the first component of an expanded Yolo Bypass in the Lower Elkhorn region, located north of West Sacramento on the eastern side of the Yolo Bypass. Jeremy Arrich from DWR presented an overview of the project and its planning and design process to the Board of Supervisors on March 8, 2016. DWR has since kept County staff apprised of its efforts to advance the process, including:
Field investigations—DWR is currently conducting a series of geotechnical and other (e.g., biological resource) investigations in Lower Elkhorn to better understand environmental conditions for proposed levee alignments. DWR has worked with all affected local landowners to obtain permission for its investigations. This work will continue for several months and will influence the content of the environmental review document prepared for the Bypass expansion in Lower Elkhorn.
Land purchase discussions—DWR is currently seeking to purchase parcels held by two separate owners that include a portion of the land needed to expand the Bypass in Lower Elkhorn (including an extension of the Sacramento Weir). DWR has represented that it will place flood easements on the acquired lands to prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses and development. DWR is pursuing these acquisitions at the present time at the request of the landowners; County staff are advised that negotiations with one landowner are proceeding, while the process is moving more slowly with the other landowner.
Bryte landfill assessment—As the Board will recall, the Bryte landfill is located on the northwest side of the Sacramento Weir near its intersection with the Yolo Bypass. The Bryte landfill site is expected to be remediated and capped so that it can serve as a corporation yard for local reclamation districts as part of the Bypass expansion in Lower Elkhorn. DWR and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency are currently working out a strategy for acquiring the landfill site; County staff are monitoring this process carefully.
Coordination with reclamation districts, landowners, and stakeholders—DWR continues to engage regularly with reclamation districts, landowners, and others (including County staff) regarding its process for evaluating an expansion of the Bypass in Lower Elkhorn. The next significant meeting is a “scoping meeting” (set for September 15) to identify environmental issues for evaluation in a CEQA document for the expansion, discussed further below. DWR has also offered to return to the Board of Supervisors for an update regarding its design and planning process upon request.
Lastly, on September 7, 2016, DWR released a “Notice of Preparation” of an EIR pursuant to CEQA for the Lower Elkhorn levee setback project. A graphic from the NOP that depicts potential levee alignments is included as Attachment C hereto. Staff expect to return to the Board of Supervisors with a proposed comment letter on September 27. The comment letter will request DWR consideration of various topics in the EIR, including: reducing and otherwise mitigating the permanent conversion of farmland; ensuring that all studied alignment alternatives promote project objectives with a sound engineering basis; integrating habitat restoration if compatible with continued agriculture and consistent with the Yolo HCP/NCCP; and integrating water and drainage infrastructure within the affected area.
Staff expect to participate closely in the environmental review process to ensure these and other County and stakeholder concerns receive careful attention. Periodically, staff will return to the Board with further updates on project planning and design, land acquisitions, and environmental review.
B. General Reevaluation Report Update.
On January 12, 2016, the Board authorized County participation with the other PDT agencies in the General Reevaluation Report (GRR) for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. The GRR is a formal process led by the Army Corps of Engineers and DWR to evaluate the flood protection function of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (generally, the system of levees providing flood protection in this region). The process also includes an assessment of opportunities to restore habitat and improve conditions for aquatic species. The GRR thus has the potential to greatly influence federal and state agency flood protection and habitat restoration planning in the region, including the Yolo Bypass.
Despite the Board’s action in January, the Army Corps and DWR have been slow to formally include Yolo County and other regional agencies as participants in the GRR process. Nonetheless, on an informal basis, a consultant representing the local agencies (paid for by DWR) has been participating in GRR meetings and providing status reports. The consultant advises that the Corps and DWR are focusing currently on “big picture” issues such as whether the GRR should focus on habitat restoration opportunities or flood protection enhancements. Also, the potential timeframe and cost of the GRR effort could soon increase significant—from three years to five years or longer, and from $3 million to $10 million or more.
County staff are following developments in the GRR process closely. Because of the potential increase in cost of the GRR effort, formal local agency participation may soon become infeasible (as the local agencies are expected to provide a third of the overall funding in exchange for becoming formal participants). If this occurs, staff will explore other means of remaining engaged in the process—such as through continued informal participation—to ensure local interests are properly represented. The Central Valley Flood Protection Board is influential in the GRR process and it supports robust local agency participation.
C. Small Communities Flood Protection and NFIP Relief.
Increasing flood protection for small communities—including Knights Landing, Clarksburg, and Yolo—has long been a County priority. The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (2012) created the Small Communities Flood Risk Reduction Program (Small Communities Program) to provide state funding assistance to communities of less than 10,000 residents that are protected by levees included within the State Plan of Flood Control. DWR administers the Small Communities Program and recently (on August 22, 2016) released a final draft version of Program guidelines. If the Program is implemented in accordance with the current draft guidelines, DWR will provide funding to communities in two phases: for identification of alternatives for addressing flood protection in feasibility studies (in Phase I), and for project design and implementation (in Phase II).
County staff have closely followed DWR’s guideline development process and plan to aggressively seek funding once the application period opens. In Phase 1, DWR intends to fund all costs associated with feasibility studies up to a maximum of $500,000 per community. Staff will seek funding for all local communities in the unincorporated area that meet the grant eligibility requirements (presently, Knights Landing and Clarksburg). Of course, staff also expect pursue Phase II funding based on the outcome of Phase I feasibility studies; any Phase 2 project will be a major undertaking that will be closely coordinated with the Board of Supervisors at the appropriate point in time.
Another flood-related issue of concern to small communities (particularly Clarksburg) is the requirement to comply with National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIP regulations constrain virtually all forms of development, including agricultural structures, and places agricultural producers in portions of Yolo County at a competitive disadvantage compared to producers in other regions.
For this reason, the PDT has proposed to convene a “FEMA rural area work group” to prepare a technical memorandum that proposes limited relief from the NFIP regulations. The topics may include a model floodplain management ordinance focused on structures that support agriculture, as well as recommended changes to FEMA floodproofing requirements for agricultural structures. The expectation is that the memorandum will receive serious consideration within DWR and FEMA—each of which is aware of the effort—for initial implementation in a limited geographical area on a trial basis.
III. Fish Passage and Floodplain Habitat Restoration.
This Section describes current work by federal and state agencies to implement fish passage and floodplain habitat projects in the Yolo Bypass (generally, efforts that take the place of the defunct Bay Delta Conservation Plan). This Section also summarizes the County’s successful efforts to obtain grant funding for drainage and water infrastructure projects intended support existing Yolo Bypass land uses and reduce the effects of future habitat restoration projects.
A. Ongoing Project Development Efforts.
By way of background, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau”) and DWR are jointly proposing projects in the Yolo Bypass to meet requirements in the biological opinions that govern operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. The proposed projects are identical to elements of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan that the Board has been briefed on periodically since 2008. The projects fall into two main categories: (1) projects to improve fish passage for adult salmon and other fish species migrating upstream; and (2) projects to increase floodplain habitat for juvenile salmon and other fish species migrating downstream. The fish passage projects are less controversial because they do not impact agricultural land or wetlands in the Yolo Bypass.
(i) Fish Passage Projects.
Wallace Weir. The proposed project will replace the existing earthen weir at the entrance of the Knights Landing Ridge Cut Canal to the Yolo Bypass with a new weir to improve irrigation and prevent endangered salmon and sturgeon migrating upstream from entering the Knights Landing Ridge Cut Canal. The Wallace Weir construction project is scheduled for completion in 2016 with a kick-off celebration in early October.
Tule Canal Agricultural Crossing (Swanston Ranch). The proposed project will replace the existing seasonal earthen structure used to provide access for farm machinery with a permanent crossing that will improve drainage, improve fish passage, and require less maintenance for landowners. Construction is expected to start in 2017.
New Fremont Weir Fish Ladder. The proposed project is to replace the existing fish ladder at the Fremont Weir with an improved fish ladder that will improve the chances that adult salmon and sturgeon migrating upstream can use the ladder to return to the Sacramento River. Construction is expected to start in 2018.
(ii) Floodplain Restoration Projects.
The Bureau and the Department continue their work on the EIS/EIR to construct an operable gate in the Fremont Weir and associated channel to allow juvenile salmon to access the Yolo Bypass from the Sacramento River at low flows. The Bureau and the Department are currently evaluating seven alternatives that range from 3,000 cfs to 12,000 cfs and will flood up to 20,000 acres. The Bureau and the Department continue to maintain March 15 as an end date to flooding—a dramatic improvement from prior proposals for inundation until May or even June—in all alternatives, in large part as a result of input from Yolo County and other stakeholders regarding the impacts on agriculture of later flooding. The proposed project may still impact existing wetlands on the eastern side of the Yolo Bypass, including the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. The Bureau and the Department are expected to release alternative descriptions in the fall of 2016 and the full Public Review Draft EIS/EIR in the fall of 2017.
B. County Grant Funding Successes.
In anticipation of the floodplain restoration projects discussed above, the Board of Supervisors approved the Yolo Bypass Drainage and Improvement Study in 2014. The Study articulated County priorities for water and drainage infrastructure improvements that benefit existing Yolo Bypass uses, such as wetlands and agriculture, and reduce impacts of the proposed fish projects. County staff have worked with partners to secure funding for some of the top priority projects and are applying for funding for additional projects.
The two major grants received are as follows:
Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Drainage and Infrastructure Improvement Project (Received). Working with Yolo County, Ducks Unlimited secured $2 million for construction of this top priority project from the Delta Conservancy and $130,000 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for CEQA and permitting work in 2016. Ducks Unlimited applied for an additional $2 million in July 2016 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California contributed $132,000 for design and engineering. The design and engineering is close to 90% complete and permitting work will start in fall 2016. The first phase of construction is expected in 2017.
Westside Tributary Flow Monitoring (Received). Yolo County secured $334,000 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2016 to collect flow data on the tributaries that flow from the west into the Yolo Bypass. This information is a critical input into models that estimate potential impacts of inundation to wetlands and agricultural land from the proposed operable gate in the Fremont Weir. cbec eco engineering will work with the University of California, Davis to monitor the tributaries starting in fall 2016 and will continue monitoring through 2018. The data will be publicly accessible.
The County also anticipates working with the Yolo County Resource Conservation District (Yolo RCD) to apply for the following grant in this funding cycle:
Agricultural Crossings Improvements (Application Pending). Yolo County, in coordination with the Yolo RCD, will apply for a Delta Conservancy grant in September 2016 for $1 million to improve 3-4 agricultural crossings in partnership with local landowners. The project will replace the existing seasonal earthen structures used to provide access for farm machinery and other equipment with permanent crossings that will improve drainage and require less maintenance for landowners. The improved drainage will help reduce the impacts from the additional inundation from the proposed Fremont Weir operable gate. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency has committed to providing $30,000 in funding to create a permitting framework for the agricultural crossings that allows Yolo County to apply for an implementation grant from the Delta Conservancy.
County staff and the Delta ad hoc subcommittee also continue to work actively to obtain funding to support Delta advocacy efforts generally. Presently, efforts are underway to complete a scope of work to support DWR funding for many ongoing County efforts with a connection to flood protection. The outcome of this effort should be known by the end of 2016. It could provide as much as $600,000 to Yolo and Solano Counties to support continued participation in Delta flood protection efforts (and habitat restoration projects with a nexus to flood protection).
IV. California WaterFix.
As the Board will recall, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) effort was effectively abandoned in mid-2015 in favor of two separate efforts: the California WaterFix, which includes the conveyance facilities (“tunnels”) proposed as part of BDCP; and California EcoRestore, which seeks to implement a portion—about 30,000 acres—of the habitat restoration included within BDCP. Environmental review of the California WaterFix pursuant to the CEQA is nearing completion, with a final EIR due this fall.
The County has commented on all prior draft environmental documents—most recently, a recirculated Draft EIR on October 30, 2015. Staff expect to seek Board approval of a comment letter on the final EIR shortly after its release. As with past comment letters, potential construction impacts in and around West Sacramento and Clarksburg will receive careful attention.
Separately, on July 26, 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board began a lengthy series of administrative hearings in connection with permitting for the California WaterFix. As the Board is aware, the Office of the County Counsel filed a Notice of Protest in connection with the permitting proceeding on January 5, 2016. A copy of the Notice of Protest (without attachments) is included with this Board letter as Attachment C.
As the Notice of Protest indicates, the County intends to oppose issuance of permits for the WaterFix during the State Board hearings due to concerns with the sufficiency of mitigation for construction-related impacts. Key areas of concern identified in the Notice of Protest include:
Traffic—Perhaps no area is more directly and substantially affected by WaterFix construction traffic than Yolo County, including the communities of West Sacramento and Clarksburg. The impacts are severe in many locations, with lengthy road segments operating at potentially “unacceptable” levels for 10+ hours daily during the 14-year construction timeframe of the new conveyance facilities (e.g., Industrial Blvd./Lake Washington Blvd., from Harbor Blvd. to Jefferson Blvd., and Jefferson Blvd. at West Sacramento city limits to Courtland Road). The County thus commented extensively on related text in the draft EIR/EIS and the recirculated draft EIR/EIS.
Noise— As a consequence of its proximity to WaterFix construction traffic and to the construction site for the northernmost intake, the community of Clarksburg will experience significant, long-term noise impacts during construction of the WaterFix. In commenting on CEQA documents for the WaterFix, the County has consistently objected that the noise analysis is inadequate and proposed mitigation measures are ineffective. The two principal noise mitigation measures simply involve selecting different haul routes and providing the construction schedule to affected residents. There is no information about how either measure could effectively reduce noise levels, how it will be implemented, or whether it is feasible.
Groundwater—WaterFix CEQA documents do not appear to account for the highly variable nature of groundwater aquifers. They instead assume effects will be distributed uniformly outward from the dewatering operation. In reality, the effects will likely vary greatly across affected aquifers and potential effects in Clarksburg could be more (or less) significant than described in those documents. Effects on groundwater wells in and near Clarksburg thus remain a matter of conjecture.
The County’s initial filing with the State Board includes an objection to permit issuance for the WaterFix until adequate mitigation for each area of concern is identified (preceded by additional analysis as needed). These matters will not be considered during the State Board’s permitting process until “Phase II” of the administrative hearings. Phase II is presently set to commence in February 2017 (or later). Staff will return to the Board of Supervisors with an update regarding the hearings prior to the commencement of Phase II.
|